Wisconsin Senate Passes Anti-Gay Amendment

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon05/12/120705wiscBan.htm

The state Senate voted Wednesday to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to ban both gay marriage and civil unions.

The Senate voted 19-14 after Republicans rejected a series of attempts by Democrats to alter the amendment, including a push to strip the portion pertaining to civil unions.

The measure now moves to the Assembly before going to the electorate for a final vote.

To amend the state constitution the proposed measure must be approved by consecutive two-year sessions of the Legislature before it can go to voters in a statewide referendum.

[closeupready]

Will homophobes need a mere majority (50^>) or a supermajority (67%>)?

if it gets to voters?

[Dark]

1. Good for Wisconsin!

Now, all they have to worry about from the Gay agenda is the abolition of Christmas

:sarcasm:

[greiner3]

2. All this could pose a huge problem;

For the states that ultimately allow gay marriages/unions or whatever they will be called, all the states have intricate agreements amongst each other that they allow each other's marriages border to border. Once one state outlaws them, how will they stop the border crossings? Border guards on all highway crossings with orders 'shoot to kill' anyone looking gay? This should prove interesting.

[EC]

3. I hope when it goes to referendum

The Dems point out that this includes Man & Woman living together(unmarried) as illegal also. There are alot of couples living together here that don't know this would include them and not just gays...Maybe if the word gets out they'll vote against it...

[kevinbgoode]

4. We need to contend that this amendment has nothing to do with marriage.

Because if it was only about marriage, the Republicans would have accepted the Democrats changes to the wording. Therefore, we should fight this claiming that this is about hijacking state laws about health benefits and insurance, burial rights and personal property that ALL citizens, whether single or married, need protection from state interference.

Then we should repeat that, if Republicans were really interested in protecting marriage, they would have let the amendment be worded as "between a man and a woman" and left off any additional language. They refused because this amendment is about demanding greater state interference in relationships.

And then I'd be a real bit*h and point out how these legislators are the same people who supported the Religious Right's attempt to demand the state nullify Michael and Terri Schiavo's marriage without their consent. And point out that in passing a constitutional amendment, it could possibly open the door for the state to nullify all kinds of protections for any relationship, because it assumes that the right to love comes from the Constitution, rather than God. Then point out how they filed lawsuits in other states when these are passed to limit rights of all kinds of people who cannot or weren't married.

Damn!!! We need to start using much more creative arguments.

[kevinbgoode]

5. Moreover, we should REFUSE to engage in any discussion

or debate about gay marriage, or defining marriage. And focus exclusively on the rest of the amendment. Period.